Choo Mi-ae, a lawmaker from the Democratic Party of Korea, remarked on the Supreme Court’s decision to deliver the final judgment on the election law violation case involving candidate Lee Jae-myung on May 1 at 3 PM, saying, “I believe they will rule him innocent.”
During her appearance on CBS radio’s ‘Park Jae-hong’s One Shot Victory’ on the morning of the 30th, Choo stated, “If it wasn’t for a pre-election ruling, they wouldn’t have taken it to the plenary session for further discussion and deliberation,” indicating her expectation of an innocent verdict.
Choo also warned, “If found guilty, it might seem like the Supreme Court is actively intervening in the presidential election to create a tragic situation on purpose.” She added, “If the prosecution’s appeal is accepted and the ruling reversed and remanded, it may face public criticism for election interference. The rapid conclusion suggests a prediction of innocence,” she commented.
Furthermore, she speculated that the Supreme Court would dismiss the appeal with the intention of delivering a not-guilty verdict before the candidate registration closes on May 11, explaining that the detailed content of the appellate court ruling, which cited the Supreme Court decision from six months ago for Lee Jae-myung’s case, served as a reason for innocence.
She mentioned that it was the same presiding justice who delivered the innocent verdict based on the Supreme Court decision from six months ago before the case was taken to the plenary session. She concluded, “The appellate court used that logic to reach an innocent verdict, and I think that’s why the bench was probably willing to hear the overall opinion. So, the referral to the plenary and the swift judgment indicates the appellate court’s innocent verdict will be upheld, rejecting the prosecution’s appeal.”
Choo argued, “If (the judiciary) were to act in a way that seems to intervene in the presidential election, that would be the same as committing a suicide goal for the entire judiciary. Would the Supreme Court do such a thing in these times, when the president has been impeached and we’re hoping for the restoration of constitutional order?”
The background for the Supreme Court’s decision to announce the verdict on May 1, earlier than expected, seems aimed at minimizing political fallout. The candidate registration for the June 3 election is from May 10-11, with official campaigning starting on the 12th. Although predictions were that the ruling might come as early as May 8-9, it was instead delivered a week sooner.
Earlier, the Supreme Court engaged in an unusual “speedy trial” approach. Following a full bench referral on the 22nd, they held an additional agreement session two days later on the 24th. Normally, with all Supreme Court justices except the court administrator participating, reaching conclusions takes time. Still, an exception seemed to apply to this case.
Initially, the district court sentenced Lee to one year in prison with a two-year probation, but this was overturned to a not-guilty verdict on appeal. If seven or more Supreme Court justices dismiss the appeal, Lee’s innocence will be finalized. However, if the appellate decision is found problematic by the majority, the Supreme Court will overturn the not-guilty ruling and remit the case back to the Seoul High Court. In this scenario, Lee would have to go through a remand trial and receive a final decision from the Supreme Court again. If Lee receives a prison sentence or a fine of 100 million won or more, he will be unable to run in the election.
There could be controversy over whether the trial should be halted if the Supreme Court sets aside the case and does not issue a final ruling before Lee is elected President. This is due to the president’s immunity from prosecution (Article 84 of the Constitution), with differing opinions on whether this applies to ongoing trials.
Even if Lee is acquitted in the election law case, he still faces trials in four other cases. Thus, there is speculation within legal circles that the Supreme Court, which handled the appeal swiftly, might include interpretations of Article 84 in the form of additional opinions in the verdict.
Ahead of the decision, Lee left a brief statement: “They will act according to law.”